 sj |
||
|
||
Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:10 AM Well put, Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: Nigel Parsons Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:24 AM Guest: "And he has said he will only censor political threads, so it is pretty obvious this is political censorship, pure and simple." No, this is not political censorship. Political censorship is the removal of extreme views, or the removal of the views from one side of the debate. Removal of the debate in toto is censorship of politics. A different matter entirely! Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:33 AM Cutting and pasting long article doesn't actually make sense. I'm sure most people just scroll past them nine times out of ten. Sticking a link and a quote or summary is far more likely to get the piece read, I'm sure - it's pretty well always more legible back on the original website. The only argument for doing it is when the piece in question isn't going to be around for very long in its original place. More times than not though it is possible to find an article in some place which archives things properly, so you use that link. Ideas about automatically junking BS threads after some limited time don't appeal to me at all. We'd lose that some wonderful stuff if we did that. We'd also lose a lot of tosh, but that goes with the territory. Don't chuck the baby out with the bathwater. I can envisage more imaginative ways of carrying on discussions that might have been BS in a way that makes them music thread. I'm all for that. |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: Bill D Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:58 AM RichM and Lepus Rex and a "guest" or two simply do not get it......They read what Joe wrote (I assume they do) and turn it inside out into something Joe never said.They take words out of context and make Joe and the other clones sound like the halycon days of the USSR! It is simple...this is Max's site, Max wants as little censorship as possible, and has several deputies he trusts to oversee things. Posting here is a privilege not a 'right', and some people have abused the privilege, even after reading the rules. "Free Speech" does NOT mean carte blanche to say anything, anytime, at any volume, with no responsibility. Several of you, including RichM and Lepus Rex ,,,(AND gargoyle) have posted a LOT of acrimonious stuff here which has not been touched, edited OR deleted.....but Max and Joe as owners and moderators have the RIGHT (not 'privilege') to majke the restrictions they choose....and it is a pretty damn light set of rules, considering! If all you dissentors want to go yell at each other at some place you like better, be my.....ummmmm.....GUEST. |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: Lepus Rex Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:02 PM "Joe isn't going to delete posts by those who have lost their cookie" ---Spaw That's even worse, Spaw! Then he's blatantly singling out the GUESTs, which is unfair. I don't think this is being done to make conversation easier, but to cater to the squeals of a minority of members who go apeshit at the mere thought of a nameless GUEST, for whatever weird personal reason. "Who the hell comes here looking for political discussions that we had four years ago?" ---Spaw Well, I have. That's part of what makes that little place in Mudcat time interesting and complete. OK, so maybe I'm weird, and I still occasionally go through newspaper clippings I collected in the early 90s (before I had the internet). But I imagine those threads are of interest to others, as well. If Max wants to purge the archives of BS, well, it's his property. But I don't think Joe should be arbitrarily deleting threads based on whether the poster is well-liked by Joe's pals or not. That's all. :) And McGrath, that's sort of what I was saying, but without all the monkey-cock. ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: Nigel Parsons Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:05 PM Lepus Rex: "Who the hell comes here looking for political discussions that we had four years ago?" ---Spaw "Well, I have." (L.R.) Do you think perhaps that a basic 'political' website might be more to your taste? and possibly your wish to re-hash old political debates might be more welcome there?! Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: Lepus Rex Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:10 PM What are you talking about, Nigel? I said I've gone back and read them. They're there, and they're interesting. More interesting, to me, than those on many political forums, because of who the posters are and what their interests are. Didn't say I don't read the musical threads, too, did I? Chill, dude. ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: Nigel Parsons Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:41 PM No, L.R. you didn't say you'd gone back and read them. I quoted (exactly) your on-line conversation with Spaw. I'll shorten it this time: (Spaw) who comes here looking for old discussions? (Lepus) I have. If I have misconstrued your comments it is because what you said was not what you intended. Obviously my error! Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: Rick Fielding Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:46 PM Chill, Dude!!?? Ummmmm, totally awesome! Ya made my day Lepus. |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: Stilly River Sage Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:46 PM Wes, to bring this back for a moment to your remarks about Librarians and what they're asked to keep track of, our librarians have software that purposely doesn't keep the names or id of individuals after a reference transaction has been concluded. They have been aware for a long time of the pressure to save the FBI a lot of steps and report anyone who is researching anything the FBI considers subersive, etc. but they don't do it. We received a memo on this univeristy campus last week saying that if approached by the FBI we are to direct them to the appropriate Dean's office to discuss what they want and what legal documents they need to return with in order to question anyone. Since my ex is unfortunately involved in a civilian capacity with Bush's In this environment, the place where Mudcat could get into trouble is if members or guests start describing those events they're not supposed to reveal to anyone. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: Bill D Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:53 PM " members who go apeshit at the mere thought of a nameless GUEST"....still don't get it. That's not the point...it's what nameless guests DO. ". But I don't think Joe should be arbitrarily deleting threads based on whether the poster is well-liked by Joe's pals or not."....total BS! Having met Joe on several occasions, I can say that the requirements for being a 'pal' of Joe's are a bit higher than you realize...but do include being a reasonable, fair-minded person who is considerate of others....and NOT being combative and ignoring polite requests to follow the rules! ahhh, why do I bother? Joe can speak for himself, and has...I just get P.O.d at the temerity of some who are determined to twist the intent of the rules. |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:59 PM BS just means non-music. By no means all BS threads are about politics. And quite often they get round to stuff involving music and song. The threads following on from September 11 are a fascinating historical document, of a sort that couldn't previously have existed. Thread arising out of things that have happened to Mudcatters - illness, fires, for example - are worth reading even now.yesars later, and as time passes their interest will increase rather than decrease. Threads about Vietnam have contained powerful personal statements and reminiscences. And those are just a few examples. |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: Joe Offer Date: 20 Feb 03 - 01:01 PM You're right, Lepus - the political discussions can be fascinating here because of who the posters are and because of their interests. However, if the posters don't use names, how do you know who they are and what their interests are? If they communicate only by throwing cut-and-paste articles at each other, how do you know what their own ideas are? It's true that links die after a time. That's why I ask people to post both a link and a summary of the article they cite. Then there's this idea of the huge number of threads that get started, that make such a hodgepodge of our discussion. They make it a matter of "survival by verbosity." Those of us who think before we write, have no chance against the compulsively verbose people who want to take over all political discussion here. I live with a wonderful wife, her 13-yr-old son, and my 88-yr-old mother-in-law. Oftentimes, it's difficult to carry on an "adult conversation" in this house because two of the family members don't know how to participate in the flow of conversation, to follow ideas as they develop and wait their turn to have their say. I think it's quite the same with our compulsive thread-starters here. They don't know how to have an adult conversation, so they keep departing from the flow of ideas by jumping out to start new threads. That way, you end up with a conversation that no reasonable person can follow. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: catspaw49 Date: 20 Feb 03 - 01:21 PM Kevin, what are you going on about? No one has made any effort to kill-off old BS threads of any sort. They're archived as well and I expect them to stay that way, UNLESS space becomes a problem and then the decision is up to Max. I know he likes the BS and although some of it is drivel, some is very interesting and intelligent conversation. The only thing that would be missing in old BS threads would be some of the info from links that had died. Joe suggests a brief summary of the link and that should suffice for posterity. On the other hand, on the music threads, it has long been policy to post the text and the link so we keep a complete record in those cases. I've gone back and re-read some of the old political threads as well as the funny stuff or the 9/11 material. It still reads well, dead links or not. Again though, it's no one's intention to dump all of the old BS threads. I would say that in the case of a few, "Hey, where is Joe Dokes?"...it might not hurt either. And JOE.....You said two family members are incapable of participating in the flow of the conversation......So what's wrong with you and your wife? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: CarolC Date: 20 Feb 03 - 01:29 PM I participate in those musical threads that address my particular musical interests, which are not often the subject of discussion here, but which are very much covered by the stated purpose of this site. I am grateful to this site for being a place where I can do this. And I like to help out on music threads when I am able. I think this site, and everything in it, from music discussion to BS discussion, is a treasure. All of it. And I'm grateful for the fact that I can look at all of the old threads, no matter what the subject is. I don't have any opinions about Joe's job or how he should do it. I'm just grateful that he's here to do whatever it is that he decides to do. And that goes for Max and Jeff, as well. |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Feb 03 - 01:33 PM I was speaking up for the old BS because there've been a few people saying how it'd be great if it got junked after a relatively short time. I thought it'd be as well to register a different point of view, just on principle. It's all a bit like when you are trying to tidy up an old cupboard full of papers - in among the rubbish you find stuff that pulls you up in horror at the idea you might have chucked it out. And it's quicker to shovel it back in rather than spend the time you'd need to really sort it out. Someday I'll make the time... |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: Bobert Date: 20 Feb 03 - 01:33 PM Well, Joe, I think this is great! I ain't into copyin', pastin' or clickin' things anyway. Jus' don't come down on bad typin' er spellin' er danglin' corpusals and all will be well... Good day for the Catbox. Bad day fir the C & P'rs... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: katlaughing Date: 20 Feb 03 - 02:16 PM Way back when, Max mistakenly thought it would be funny to play an April Fool's joke on us and so he posted that the Mudcat was going to be shut down due to some BS concerning copyrights, etc. He had us going all day. Some of us figured out that we could cut and paste whole threads into our own WP programs and have them saved forever that way. Thankfully, it was a bad, bad joke, one he's never repeated 'cause he knows what we'd do to him, BUT it was a good lesson in how each individual can save all that they like on their own harddrive if they have any concerns about losing material on here. |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: Bill D Date: 20 Feb 03 - 03:41 PM (for the record...*giggle*...some of us figgered out Max's bad joke immediately. I guess it comes with being a confirmed skeptic) |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: katlaughing Date: 20 Feb 03 - 03:52 PM Yeah, yeah, BillD, rub it in...I remember posting that I thought it was BUT wasn't going to take a chance AND wasn't quite sure, I mean I was a newbie, okay?**bg** As it is I have a great collection of Classic Threads on my harddrive...ah...nostalgia! |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: CarolC Date: 20 Feb 03 - 03:59 PM How does one save a thread to one's hard drive (for those of us who weren't around back then)? |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: katlaughing Date: 20 Feb 03 - 04:04 PM All I did was copy and paste, Carol. There may be an easier way, but I don't know of it if there is. Of course, most threads didn't go beyond 100 or so posts then because a lot of us had really slow connections, including BillD's hamster-driven harddrive.:-) Also, once I pasted, I went in and cleaned it up, getting rid of all but the heading for each posting and the posting. |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: MMario Date: 20 Feb 03 - 04:09 PM Bring the thread up - then choose "file" "Save As" In IE you get a choice as to format |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: CarolC Date: 20 Feb 03 - 04:14 PM Thanks MMario! |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: Don Firth Date: 20 Feb 03 - 04:22 PM The problem with this multiplicity of threads on essentially the same subject, is that if you have something to say, you don't know where the hell to post it so that other people will see it. There are so many threads on the same subject that sometimes I can't remember which ones I've posted to. I actually have a life away from the computer and I don't have the time to go through all this stuff. Some of it is good and informative, but much of it is repetitive ranting and raving. It's ridiculous for someone to start a new thread every time he or she discovers what they think is a new and subtle nuance of the issue. It dilutes the discussion as a whole. And by the way, as far as lengthy cut-and-paste jobs are concerned, I glance at the first sentence or two to see if it's a matter of real interest, and if so, I might read a bit further, but unless it really grabs me, I skip the rest—and I'll bet most other people do too. So it's a double waste of bandwidth. I don't start very many threads, and I think carefully before I do. I started one yesterday ("BS: Constitutional Guarantees") because it's something I feel is a matter of deep concern to everyone. It's separate from the Iraqi war issue—not just a subtle variation on a theme. It's more related to the "security vs. freedom" issues raised by recent anti-terrorist legislation, and I asked people to try to stick to the subject of the Constitution (sort of like trying to herd a flock of nervous chickens) and not turn it into another anti-war thread, of which there are more that plenty. A little moderation and self-control, okay? Do what you have to do, Joe. I'm with you. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Feb 03 - 04:39 PM I think maybe people got into the habit of starting a new thread, when the old one was much over 100 or so posts, before the ungrade. Long threads just wouldn't load, especially for some people, because they weren't divided into neat sets of 50 threads, like they are now. And the habit has stuck. It made sense then but it doesn't now. There is a case for separate threads on different aspects of the same topic, though I think providing links to and from the other ones should be part of our responsibility, when we feel a new thread is needed - but it's got silly lately. That is largely because of a few people who seem to think they need to start a new thread on the same topic every time they sit down at the comouter, instead of going back to the old thread and carrying on the discussion. It's a pain, I agree, and it makes it very hard for a discussion to move along. |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: GUEST Date: 20 Feb 03 - 04:44 PM Again Lepus, nice try. But I'm not going to play these mind games with the brown shirt and jack boot types around here. Life is too short for that bullshit. If the Mudcat cops really wanted to be rid of me, they could have done so at any time. This isn't about getting rid of one unpopular guest, this is about exercising power and control in extremely heavy handed ways, as you pointed out Lepus. They want to force me to post in a different way from other non-political anonymous guests to punish me, do it their way, make their censorship job easier, that sort of thing. If they actually do check the IP addresses, which I doubt, they already know I am not the only regular anonymous guest posting to this forum. Or even posting to the political threads. I don't start that many political threads anyway. And I've been censored for providing links without cutting and pasting, for providing links and an excerpt of an article, and for cutting and pasting whole articles. So the issue isn't about cutting and pasting, either. Nah, people here don't recognize what is going down now, but they will soon enough. This is about a small group of Mudcat members whose popularity has waned because a new group of politically inclined members have joined, and are using the BS threads in ways that interest them. They will be dictated to more and more often now, as to what they can and can't do here. There won't be any restrictions on any other types of BS threads, just the political ones, as we see happening here. Pretty soon, the Mudcat members who would rather talk about their personal problems, latest surgeries, fart jokes, etc. will then be at the center of the Mudcat world again, and the nice people will have won the day, and saved us from political discussions no one forced them to read to begin with. One giant leap for political censorship, and an even bigger leap for fart jokes. Congratulations, you all win the day. You do political folk music proud. First they came for the hated anonymous guest, but I didn't speak up because I was a member... |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: NicoleC Date: 20 Feb 03 - 04:59 PM The gargantuan threads are still kind of a problem for me; anything above 200 posts or so is just too difficult to wade through in any meaningful way (although easier than it used to be). It's hard to keep track of what you've read and have not, you've gotta find the end or not quite the end, and reading backwards just doesn't work for me. Besides, most of the BS threads descend into generic insults anyway after a 100 posts or so. So I just ignore the big ones after a while. I agree we don't need so many new threads, but really big ones aren't comfortable to read either -- and the way politics moves, a lot of the times the early posts aren't relevant. Maybe there's a happy medium to be found? |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: Bill D Date: 20 Feb 03 - 05:02 PM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I spoke up...I said I liked the political discussion to be AMONG regulars 'with names', members or not, rather than a forum for any news junkie who happened by. I discuss LOTS of things with my friends, politiacl and otherwise, but I dislike being accosted by strangers who want to rant to me about their latest scare. |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: Bobert Date: 20 Feb 03 - 05:18 PM Well, danged, GUEST! Hey, may Joe would think one guest *handle* per thread would work.I mean like if the thread is about blues you could be GUEST, 12 bar and if it was about Bush being a jerk, something real catchy like GUEST, Bush is a Jerk. Hey, wereas I can see all your points, I don't see this as a blatent assault on anyone's 1st Ammendment rights. I mean, there's a world of difference between Joe and John Ashcroft. Right? So, what do you think, Joe? Howz about a different guest handle for each thread. That way we wouldn't have to burn up as much gray metter trying to figure out which guest is posting. I also agree with Nicole in that some threads just get too burdomesome and end up with just two or three folks hashing out the same positions. I've been guilty of that. How about given the author of the thread the option of tweeking the title a little at 200 (or so) and tweeking the content just enough to get some participation? Just ideas... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Feb 03 - 05:19 PM How the hell are we expected to distinguish one GUEST without a label from another GUEST without a label? Assuming we cared to. If you've been involved in a discussion thread, Nicola, it's easy enough - just look to the last time you posted and move forward from there. Otherwise skim through till you see a post that looks unfamiliar, which is a bit trickier. Or of course you can go by date if you've any idea when you last looked at the thread. I agree with your analogy Bill D. |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: Bill D Date: 20 Feb 03 - 05:29 PM and here is a lovely image to keep in mind |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: Rustic Rebel Date: 20 Feb 03 - 05:32 PM From all these posts it seems pretty easy to sum up. 1. Add a link instead of cut and paste. 2. Guest- what is the big fucking deal to add a 1 or A or anything you desire as long as it is consistant, just so we know who is who. Hated Guest, I have noticed that you use a name now, so everyone should really get off your ass about that.(Except I think it's a pretty funky name you picked!) 3. Same subject- same thread. That's an easy one to figure out. All of this seems like no big deal to me. I have been pretty much sticking to the rules from the get, maybe a few cut and pastes but nothing to seriously wrong with that either. I know save space- I get it. One more thing I would like to add- Gargoyle- I've always found your posts to be quite amusing, blunt and straightforward. I have no problem with that from anyone. The thought of censoring threads turns my stomach. So if you get this really simple stuff Joe is saying- Maybe it won't have to come down to censoring at all. Peace. Rustic, stating my opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: Bill D Date: 20 Feb 03 - 05:39 PM messed up my link, I see...well, because I care...image to keep in mind came from this page flame warriors (we may have had some of these in the distant past...very nice, some of them) |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: annamill Date: 20 Feb 03 - 05:41 PM Where is Max?? Does he have any say in this?? Is all this cutting and deleting ok with him?? Didn't he say there would be no censorship?? Someone made a good point. There have been times when I will click on a blue clicky thing in a thread only to find it is gone. You know I love you Joe, but, did you get up on the wrong side this morning?? You may be right about some of the stuff you dictated here, but you could be a little softer about it. Then again, I know I'll never cut and paste again! Cheez! Love, Annamill |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: Bill D Date: 20 Feb 03 - 05:44 PM (the posts from gargoyle that don't cross the line are all still here...there was a time when some were seriously out of line and personal attacks) we have about 6 years worth of gargoyle now, and he 'almost' gets the point at times. |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: Jeri Date: 20 Feb 03 - 05:52 PM I read most of this thread. My take on it: At one time, Mudcat was almost all music discussion with a small handfull of non-musical threads. Then came political debate, usually one or two thread's worth. Now for some reason (mostly one virus-guest and maybe a couple other anon-guests who just like to start threads) there are more posts on politics than on anything else. Can't say much, because it's what people want. But... Early on, we were encouraged to cut and paste folkie stuff because Mudcat was somewhat archival in nature. Early on, we were told not to cut and paste lenghty non-music articles. It's not censorship because the stuff being deleted is not the work of the person doing the posting. Their own personal words would have to be deleted. It's a waste of space, it's usually a copyright violation, and the articles are not only old news in a couple of days, but usually so available that there's no reason anyone should expect to see them here. Now if somebody wants to start on the freakin' virus warnings, hoaxes and "My name is Jokhe Stwahrt, I'm an African man, and you know that my credit is bad"... (oh jeez - somebody stop me NOW!) |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: annamill Date: 20 Feb 03 - 06:00 PM You know, I haven't been here much lately. I've been crazy busy. I see all the war/anti-war threads. I think people are afraid. When you're afraid you want to talk to people you feel comfortable with. You want to express your feelings and ideas and fears. This might take many forms. And threads. We need to talk I think. Love, Annamill |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: GUEST Date: 20 Feb 03 - 06:03 PM BillD, you probably found your way to the Flame Warrior cartoon site through links provided by me. I introduced them to Mudcat quite some time ago. This is really all about perception though, isn't it? Here are the images I see when I come here: http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame79.html And this image: http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame3.html And this: http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame35.html This: http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame48.html This: http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame38.html And of course, the one that Hated Guest stepped on: http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame69.html |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: catspaw49 Date: 20 Feb 03 - 06:14 PM Anna my old friend, we GOT threads! WE got a whahzookie full of threads!!! As a matter of fact, I just saw a thread from Peter T. asking for a moratorium on the damn things. I agree, we need to talk and people need a place to vent, propose solutions, just plain bitch, express fear....all those things. On the Iraq issue you can still start a new thread...feel free. But we have had some people around here who seem to believe that every stray thought on Bush or Iraq needs a new thread! AND like as not, the new thread starts with a cut and paste! No censorship going on here....Nobody has their words expunged. Just a few rules in the Bentham/Mill tradition. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: CarolC Date: 20 Feb 03 - 06:18 PM Oops, katlaughing! I didn't see your reply to me until just now. Thanks to you, too. |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: katlaughing Date: 20 Feb 03 - 06:26 PM That's okay, Carol, MMario had a much more elegant solution. Wish I'd known about it back then! A general aside: one wonders why the news junkie guests who want to muck up the Mudcat with thread ad nauseum don't just go start their own blogs where they can cut and paste, rant and rave, dispense their holier than thou know it all *superiority* to masses who might appreciate it better than a bunch of stoopid old folkies. |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: GUEST Date: 20 Feb 03 - 06:43 PM "No censorship going on here....Nobody has their words expunged." From Joe Offer in this thread: "When things get out of hand, you can expect to see threads consolidated or renamed, and frivolous threads deleted." That says to me, there will be threads deleted without any cut and pasting, if Joe deems them "frivolous". And this: "How can we allow everyone to say what they think, without allowing the Forum to be dominated by a few idiots who overwhelm us with their verbosity?" That says to me, Joe will decide who is an idiot, and who is "overwhelmingly verbose". Nothing arbitrary about that though, I'm sure. So long as you have no interest in PEL or the war against Iraq. And he ended the opening thread with this: "...if you start more than one political thread in a day, expect them all to be consolidated with others. Your limit is ONE PER DAY (Joe's emphasis)" Does this mean everyone Joe? Members and guests alike? So now you not only are going to define what is and what isn't political, you are also going to start keeping track of who started which political threads on a daily basis? Nothing arbitrary or Big Brother about that either, I suppose. Then, Joe announces the likelihood that all guest posts without a name in the from line will be censored: "There's another thing I'm considering: insisting that people use a consistent name when participating in non-music discussions. If you post at Mudcat more than once leave the name space blank or use a variety of names, I'll ask the JoeClones to delete your post the moment they see it, no questions asked." Please note, that there will be certain selectivity about which guest posts get censored and which don't. Here Joe says it will be any guest posting to a BS thread. But c'mon people, don't be stupid. Do you really think the Joe & the clones WON'T be extremely selective about which BS threads they will delete guest posts with nothing in the from line? Like the political threads Joe Offer decides are "frivolous" or posts that are too "verbose"? It may not be policy yet, but this of course means that any guests who come into the forum without reading the FAQ, etc. who don't have a grasp on not only "THE RULES" but also the cultural aversion in this group to people posting without a name in the from line, would potentially have their posts automatically deleted. That ought to bring in the newcomers, eh? Sure as hell looks like a Mudcat policy to keep this forum xenophobically safe and perpetually cleansed of newbies, but what the hell...we love you Joe. BTW, is being annoying and an asshole considered to be a violation of Mudcat policy? And who gets to say who is an annoying asshole, and who isn't? I have a sneaking suspicion my list of annoying assholes on Mudcat won't match up with say, catspaw's list. Other's mileage may vary, too. |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: Big Mick Date: 20 Feb 03 - 07:10 PM WAMSO Matriot GUEST, you are a crackup. You build a predicate and force a response, then you say, I told you so. It is this simple. Max, Joe, and Jeff make the rules. You follow them. If you can't live with them, leave. Let me tell you a rule that I don't like, but I live with. My opinion is that none of you can be anon. Were I in charge, you would have to register, have a cookie that wouldn't allow you to have more than one ID, agree to have your email posted, as well as your IP, and you would be totally accountable for all comments. My view has been rejected. I will live with it. Ahead Full, Joe. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: catspaw49 Date: 20 Feb 03 - 07:12 PM Really gettin' to yuh ain't it? No problem in newbie posting or first time posting.......easy. And consolidation ain't censorship is it? You could of course play by the very simple rules or you could fight on with this insane drivel which fools no one.......Go ahead and force the other issue on names......I figure the clones can handle it. Or you could continue your crappola under a consistent handle.....too easy huh? Spaw.......LMAO |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: catspaw49 Date: 20 Feb 03 - 07:14 PM Gee Mick....Sorry about the cross posting but they seem to read in a similar vein.......(:<)) Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: GUEST Date: 20 Feb 03 - 07:27 PM So what are the rules, exactly? State for me which of the "rules" of Mudcat posting messages without a name in the from line violates? As to the creation of threads, could someone here please direct everyone's attention to where the "rules" of thread creation are? Do they show when one clicks on the "create a thread" button? No? So how is a newbie to know these "rules"? Is there a Mudcat definition of an idiot? Of an asshole? Can someone please direct everyone's attention to the "rules" about idiots and assholes being allowed to post in this forum? When one clicks the "submit message" button, is there perhaps a questionnaire that one must complete, to make this determination? Is there someplace at Mudcat--the FAQ, say--where "political" is defined for us, so posters might know if a thread they wish to create will be counted as their "one a day" political thread creation? Like PEL, for instance. Is PEL political, BS, or music-related? It isn't getting to me at all catspaw, although I'm not the least bit sorry to disappoint you. I'm merely pointing out all the holes in the claims everyone keeps making. Joe Offer is really just laying his groundwork for censoring the political posts of certain people, myself included. But anyone who thinks Joe is going to stop with me ought to have their heads examined. Power corrupts, and I think we all know how the saying about absolute power goes, don't we? |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: GUEST Date: 20 Feb 03 - 07:33 PM BTW, did I forget to mention catspaw, just how much enjoyment I get out of exposing the holes in these inane arguments? |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: katlaughing Date: 20 Feb 03 - 07:36 PM The only thing you are exposing are the holes in your cranium. The Mudcat is an evolving entity, unlike yourself, and as such, things change - live with it or leave. Nobody's falling for your obfuscatory manipulations. |
|
Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: stevetheORC Date: 20 Feb 03 - 07:44 PM Dear Guest in answer to your question is there a 'Mudcat definition of an idiot? or Of an asshole?' I think that the answer is yes its you. Please go on and have a full and joyus life elsewhere as you are becoming tedious if you dont like Joe's rulling then kindly piss off. Steve the Orc |
| Share Thread: |
